Report on Byway Open to All Traffic: Bentworth 23

Final Report Version number 1.1 6 June 2016

From Walk Unlimited

Written by :

Contact :

[Note that throughout this report the term ‘motorbike’ is used to refer to mechanically propelled vehicles with 2 wheels, and the term ‘4WD’ is used to refer to mechanically propelled vehicles with 3 or more wheels, and the term ‘motorised vehicles’ is used to refer to all mechanically propelled vehicles, for convenience.]

Page 1 of 18 1 Introduction and character summary

1.1 Bentworth Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT) 23 is located between Ashley Road (Grid Ref: SU 648 400) at its northern end and Holt End Lane/Trinity Road (Grid Ref: SU 655 384). It is 2067 metres long. BOAT 23 is described in the Definitive Statement, which forms part of the legal record of public rights of way, as follows: “From Road C.36 northwestwards along 10 ft. wide stone based track enclosed approximately 25 ft. wide between hedges, then northwards to Road U.227 at Ashley Farm” - where Road C.36 is Holt End Lane/Trinity Road and Road U.227 is Ashley Road. The northern half of BOAT 23 (running roughly north- south) is also known as Dirty Lane and forms a part of the Oxdrove Way promoted off-road cycle trail; the southern half (running roughly north-west to south-east) is also known as Jennie Green Lane.

1.2 BOAT 23 is for the most part open in character with grassy verges and hedgerows, some of which are managed and some which are predominantly comprised of semi-mature and mature trees, on both sides of a surfaced track. Adjacent agricultural fields are accessed from the BOAT, which also provides access to a small number of buildings (dwellings and agricultural businesses) at or near its southern end.

1.3 The entire length of BOAT 23 has a rural character with a feeling of remoteness and tranquillity. Birdsong and raptor calls can be readily heard from the BOAT. Engine noise is largely absent; Ashley Road has very little traffic indeed, and only occasional road noise can be heard from the southern end of the BOAT. There are few buildings to be seen, and these only at either end of the BOAT. The landscape to either side of the BOAT is managed agricultural. The surface is unsealed and the BOAT has the appearance and character of a route which is predominantly used by the public on foot, cycle or horseback.

1.4 The land crossed by BOAT 23 is not designated as a nature reserve, Site of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Area or Special Area of Conservation, nor is it within or adjacent to a National Park or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

2 Physical Condition Assessment

2.1 The centre of the BOAT has a firm stone surface throughout. There are grassy verges along both sides of the surfaced track; the verges are mostly level, they vary in width and their surface is uneven in some places. The surface of the BOAT has some potholes which hold water; the potholes vary in depth up to about 6 inches deep and some extend across the full width of the surfaced part of the BOAT. Surface mud covers some parts of the BOAT, notably through the centre stretch. This mud is deep in places with ruts forming in vehicle tracks. Where deep mud has formed, it often covers the full surfaced width of the BOAT.

2.2 The table and diagram below contain a detailed assessment of the condition of the route with photographic illustrations. The survey was undertaken on a clear, predominantly dry day in February 2016. The preceding months had experienced unusually high amounts of rainfall.

Page 2 of 18 Condition of Bentworth 23, as of 23 February 2016

Point Grid Location Photograph Notes on BOAT management / Reference descripton condition

1 SU 648 400 Northern end of The entrance to the BOAT from the BOAT at junction road is firm and level with a stony with Ashley Road surface. There is a double field gate, locked by combination padlock and chain across the BOAT with a 2-way self-closing bridlegate to the west side, separated from the field gate by a narrow gap. There is no signpost.

There is evidence of use by motorbikes, cyclists and walkers through the bridlegate.

There is evidence of use by vehicles through the western field gate (on the right in the photo) 2 SU 648 400 South of gates Past the gates, the BOAT has a firm, level stone surface with some light surface mud.

A wide ditch has been cut to the east of the surfaced track, separated from the track by a bank. Drainage grips have been cut through the bank.

There is a mature high hedge to the east of the ditch, and a managed hedge to the west side of the BOAT. The hedge on the west side includes an avenue of trees at the northern end - these thin to occasional trees further along the BOAT. The BOAT has an open aspect with wide grassy verges. The grass verge on the west side has recently been cut and the hedge has been flailed.

There is some shallow potholing, and occasional deeper water-filled potholes.

Tyre tracks of agricultural vehicles are evident in the surface mud.

Page 3 of 18 3 SU 647 397 At junction with A double field gate provides access (private) track to the adjacent field to the east of leading to east the BOAT. The gateway shows through small signs of use by agricultural woodland to Gaston vehicles. Wood

4 SU 647 396 A 4” deep water-filled pothole occupies the full width of the surfaced part of the BOAT. The pothole has a firm base. The verges show signs of use.

5 SU 647 395 At junction with A double field gate provides access (private) track to the adjacent field to the west of leading to west the BOAT. The gateway shows signs of use by agricultural vehicles travelling along the BOAT from/to the north.

6 SU 647 395 A 6” deep water-filled pothole occupies the full width of the surfaced part of the BOAT. The grass verges are passable, although they have lost some of their grass cover due to use and the verge surface may become deep if wet weather and heavy use continues. The verges show signs of use by horses.

To the south of the wide pothole, the BOAT is firm and level, with grass growing down the centre strip.

Page 4 of 18 7 SU 647 394 There is a depression, or dip, in the surfaced BOAT. The east side of the surfaced track is muddy, with water pooling in the beginnings of a rut. A short (5m) ditch has been cut to the east of the BOAT, with a grip cut from the depression to the ditch. Use by heavy vehicles has pushed the surface mud upwards so that it forms a barrier between the rut in the track and the drainage grip; this means that water is not flowing into the ditch.

Further along the same thing has happened. The photograph illustrates water flowing from the rut into the drainage grip when a break in the banked up mud is created.

The verges on this section of the BOAT are banked and uneven. The surfaced part of the BOAT has a deep covering of mud. It is possible for walkers and cyclists to travel along the BOAT by crossing between the eastern and western vehicle tracks, but if the surface deteriorates further this will no longer be possible.

8 SU 647 392 At field boundary to There are field gates on both sides east side of BOAT of the BOAT providing access to the adjacent fields. The gateway on the west side shows little sign of recent use. The gateway on the east side shows recent use by vehicles to/from the south.

Page 5 of 18 9 SU 647 391 To south of field A 40m ditch has been cut to the boundary at point 8 west side of the BOAT. Drainage grips have been cut from the BOAT to the ditch.

There is no camber on the surfaced part of the BOAT and where a deep (6”) pothole has formed in the surface of the track the BOAT lies lower than the grips, so water does not flow off the surface. The bank between the ditch and the surfaced part of the BOAT is muddy and uneven. There is a steep bank on the east side of the BOAT, which is not suitable for travelling on.

The track surface in the pothole is firm, but the water is muddy so the depth can only been ascertained by passing through the water. 10 SU 647 391 To north of junction A muddy patch covers the width of with f/p 10 the surfaced part of the BOAT. Shallow ruts from vehicle use have formed in the surface mud. There is some potholing particularly in the rut on the eastern side of the BOAT, and a build up of mud in the centre of the track; these combine to cause pooling of water in the eastern rut.

On the west side of the BOAT, drainage grips have been cut to a ditch. The ditch is filled with silt, as is the grip. It is likely that water will start to pool in the western rut as it no longer has any means of running off.

Page 6 of 18 11 SU 647 391 Junction with There is a fingerpost at the junction footpath 10 and with the footpath. The footpath Wield BOAT 19 shows signs of use by walkers.

This stretch of the BOAT is the most overhung by trees, although some vegetation on the west side has been cut back. There is deep mud across the BOAT at its junction with BOAT 19. Ruts in the mud have been formed by vehicle tracks and these are water-filled. A short ditch, or depression, has been cut to the west of BOAT 23, immediately south of the junction with BOAT 19. This depression has filled with surface mud and silt, and water is no longer flowing into it from the BOAT.

To the south of the junction the surface is stony and clear of mud. The BOAT is easy to use here. Tyre tracks from agricultural vehicles are evident to the sides of the stone surface.

12 SU 647 390 The BOAT lies lower than the land to either side. The surface is muddy and ruts are developing with water held in shallow potholes within the ruts. The surface of the track beneath the mud and water is firm. The muddy section is approximately 50 metres long.

The verge on the west is grassy and has been recently cut. It is variable in width and the surface is not level making it difficult to pass on.

The centre of the surfaced part of the BOAT, between vehicle tracks, is raised, and relatively firm and level.

Page 7 of 18 13 SU 647 389 At field and parish There is an open entrance to a field boundary to west to the west of the BOAT. The field side of BOAT entrance shows signs of use by vehicles coming to/from the BOAT to the north.

Rubble has been laid on the track by the field entrance at some time in the past.

The BOAT has a poor surface which is very is muddy for a 70 metre stretch to the south of the field entrance, with use by vehicles including agricultural vehicles evident. The northernmost 20m has deep soft mud across the track, the remainder of this poor section has a raised centre (between vehicle tracks) which provides a better surface.

The verge on the west side is grassy, has been cut recently, and provides a reasonably level surface which shows signs of use by walkers and horses.

14 SU 650 387 At junction with There is a padlocked field gate footpath 13 across the surfaced part of the BOAT with a 2-way self-closing bridlegate to the north of the field gate. There are signs of motorbike use through the bridlegate, and of agricultural vehicle use both through the field gate and into the field to/from the east. 15 SU 650 387 East of footpath The BOAT has a level, stony junction surface. The verges are wide and have been recently cut. The hedges have been flailed. There are occasional trees within the hedges.

Page 8 of 18 16 SU 652 386 North of agricultural The BOAT has a stone surface. building by Kestrel There is evidence of use by Cottage agricultural vehicles. There is some gullying on the centre of the surfaced part of the BOAT.

17 SU 653 386 East of agricultural There is an open field entrance to building by Kestrel the north side of the BOAT; there is Cottage a log across the field entrance. There are signs that agricultural vehicles have been turning in the field entrance.

18 SU 653 386 By agricultural There is an open entrance to the building north of agricultural building on the south Kestrel Cottage side of the BOAT. There is evidence of vehicles accessing the entrance from the BOAT from both directions.

The BOAT has a firm stony surface. 19 SU 653 386 At Kestrel Cottage The entrance to Kestrel Cottage on the south side of the BOAT shows evidence of vehicular use along the BOAT to/from the south-east.

20 SU 655 384 At Jenny Green There is a gated entrance to Jenny Cottage Green Cottage.

The surface of the BOAT is level, firm, compacted stone.

Between the Cottage and Trinity Road there is a water deflector across the BOAT. To the south- west side of the BOAT there is a 30m long ditch, separated from the surfaced track by a grassy bank. The ditch is filled with water at its northern end, where the water level is above the height of the BOAT.

Page 9 of 18 21 SU 655 384 Junction with Trinity The entrance to the BOAT from Road/Holt End Lane Trinity Road/Holt End Lane is wide and open. It is signposted by a waymarker post.

1

2

3

1 /

3

2 / 8 4 1

0 5 6

7 /2 0 /1 8 1 0 018/12/1 8 1 2 0/ 5 /1 2/ 8 1 10 01 9/ 9 1 25 2/1 9/2

/1 0 /2 11 2 5 2 12

01 13 8/ 23 /3 15 14 17 18 16 01 19 0 8/ 1 23 8 /4 / 1

3 / 20 1

© Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey [100019180]. You are permitted to use this data solely to enable 21 you to respond to, or interact with, the organisation that provided you with the data. You are not permitted to copy, sub-licence, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form.

Diagram illustrating locations in table above Page 10 of 18 2.4 Current suitability of the route for different types of user

2.4.1 Pedestrians: The route is suitable for use by walkers. For the most part, the surfaced part of the BOAT can be readily walked. In some places deep surface mud and/or water-filled potholes extend across the surfaced width. The unsurfaced verges allow passage in most such locations, although these can also be muddy with an uneven surface, and at the junction with Wield BOAT 19 (point 11) deep rutted mud extends across the whole available width making passage for walkers difficult. Waterproof walking boots would be necessary to ensure feet remained dry.

2.4.2 Cyclists: The majority of the route is suitable for use by cyclists riding bikes equipped for off-road use. However, the stretch at point 11 has surface conditions that would be challenging to all but the more experienced off-road cyclist or mountain-bike rider. Family and casual/touring cyclists may not be able to cycle through this section, and would be likely to at least need to put feet on the ground if not actually push the bike. Standard cycling footwear would not be sufficient to withstand the depth of mud on this section of the BOAT. In other locations some of the larger water-filled potholes, and some stretches of deep mud, extend across the surfaced width of the BOAT; cyclists would need to use the adjacent grass verge in order to avoid the risk of damage from travelling through these areas.

2.4.3 Equestrians: The route is suitable for use by equestrians. The BOAT has a firm surface; the surface mud is not of an unsuitable depth. Where water-filled potholes extend across the surfaced width, adjacent verges are available for use. Adjacent bridlegates are provided where the field gates are locked at points 1 and 14 in the Table.

2.4.4 Horse-drawn vehicles: The route is passable by horse-drawn vehicles, although the water-filled potholes across the surfaced width may be a deterrent to some. The BOAT has a firm surface; the surface mud is not of an unsuitable depth. The driver of, or passenger in, the horse-drawn vehicle would need to be able open a gate, either the field gate or the adjacent bridlegate, at points 1 and 14 in order for the vehicle to pass through. If using the field gate, the combination for the padlock would need to be known.

2.4.5 Motorbikes: The route is suitable for use by motorbikes. The BOAT has a firm base, and any surface mud is not sufficient to prevent use by motorbikes. Where water-filled potholes extend across the surfaced width, adjacent verges are available for use. Field gates have been provided for use by motorbikes, although the padlock combination would need to be known. Alternatively, some motorbike riders may choose to use the adjacent bridlegates.

2.4.6 4WDs: The route is suitable for use by 4WDs. The BOAT has a firm base, and any surface mud is not sufficient to prevent use by vehicles. Field gates have been provided for use by 4WDs, although the padlock combination would need to be known.

3 Use and Impact of Use

3.1 BOAT 23 provides vehicular access to dwellings, an agricultural building and fields - this is referred to as ‘private use’. This private use takes place along the whole length of the BOAT, including through the padlocked field gates at points 1 and 14. Much of the private use is by heavy agricultural vehicles, as is evidenced by the tracks entering and leaving adjacent fields, as illustrated above at points 3, 5, 8,13, 14 and 17. The BOAT also shows signs of use by the public of all access types. Evidence of public use is less obvious than evidence of private use - the tracks of agricultural vehicles being much more prominent than any other tracks.

3.2 BOAT 23 forms part of a relatively dense network of public rights of way in this locality. There are onward connections for pedestrians in all directions. There are continuous connections for higher rights users (cyclists, equestrians, vehicles) from both ends of the BOAT, and to the west from the centre section of the BOAT. The surrounding road network is relatively lightly used. At its northwestern end off-road travel can continue on BOAT 24, and at the southeastern end Jennie Green Lane continues on a short stretch of

Page 11 of 18 unclassified road before returning to BOAT status on BOAT 28. Wield BOAT 19 joins BOAT 23 from the west; it and Wield BOAT 20 provide relatively short connections to the road network.

3.3 BOAT 23 provides an important link in the rights of way network, particularly for walkers, cyclists and equestrians who wish to avoid, as much as is possible, roads and/or motorised vehicles. The northwestern part of BOAT 23 forms part of a promoted long-distance cycle route, the Ox-Drove Way. There is a connected BOAT network to the north, and onward connections to the southeast lead to a network of bridleways in Chawton Park Wood. The nearest alternative route (for all but walkers) is the road network through the village of Bentworth to the east (Ashley Road, School Lane, Church Street, Holt End Lane, Trinity Road). These roads are all designed primarily for use by motorised vehicles; the verges are narrow and in some places missing, there are sharp bends (with chevron warnings), and unrestricted traffic speeds.

3.4 Between January and March 2013, BOAT 23 was subject to resurfacing works. 300 tons of stone was laid in ruts and depressions along the length of the BOAT and the surface was then scraped up, re-laid and compacted. The BOAT had been closed to all users since May 2012 and when it was opened for public use it was opened in stages in order to assess the effect of use by different types of user. In addition an Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) was put in place such that use by motorised traffic was allowed only by permit. Gates were erected across the BOAT (points 1 and 14) to support the staged opening and ETO. The ETO came into effect in May 2014, and as of March 2016, 255 permits had been issued of which all but 19 were for motorbike use. The experiment (i.e. the use of the permit system) was judged by Hampshire County Council (HCC) to have been a success and although there was an intention that the ETO and its permit system for motorised users would be given permanent effect, this had not happened at the time of the condition survey when the restrictions to use were due to be lifted in May 2016. It may be noted that the ETO is often referred to as an ETRO, or Experimental Traffic Regulation Order, in HCC documents.

3.5 The surface of the BOAT as surveyed shows evidence of use by people on foot, bicycle, horseback, motorbike and other vehicles. Much of the evidence of vehicle use clearly includes private use by heavy agricultural vehicles. There is some surface mud, and standing water. Surface mud is deep in places. There are also some potholes, which can be deep and wide. Vehicle tracks are evident in all areas of surface mud. Where surface mud is deep, it appears that vehicle movements have churned up the surface. Deep ruts have formed in the mud, and these hold water. Continued surface disturbance is likely to cause permanent damage to the surface. Ditches are present alongside many areas of deep mud, with some grips cut between the surfaced track and the ditches.

3.6. The amount and type of use of the BOAT mean that the drainage works (ditches and grips) are ineffective at keeping the surface of the BOAT free from standing water and mud, and this is leading to deepening of the mud and the formation of potholes. The weight of the vehicles is pushing the mud to the sides of the wheel tracks, and also compresses the stone surfacing material. The mud that is pushed to one side builds up and forms a barrier between the surface of the BOAT and the grip that is intended to take surface water into the adjacent ditch - as illustrated at point 7. Mud can also be pushed into the centre of the track, where it can prevent the flow of surface water away from one side of the BOAT - as illustrated at point 10. Compression of the surface stone can lead to pothole formation and a lowering of the surface relative to the verges. Where the surfaced track is lower than the verges and grips are cut through the verges, water and mud will still stand on the surface - as illustrated at points 9 and 12. Where the BOAT is at a low point within the surrounding landform (point 11), and also overshadowed by trees (reducing the drying actions of sunlight and wind) mud and water have accumulated and caused silting up of the drainage.

3.7 Non-vehicular users are using the verges in order to avoid the worst potholes and surface mud. This is effective along most of the BOAT, although there are some places where the verges are unsuitable for use, and in other places the use of the verges is starting to have a negative impact on the verge itself - illustrated at point 6.

Page 12 of 18 3.8 The weight of the vehicles using the BOAT affects their effect on the surface, with heavy agricultural vehicles having most effect, followed by 4WDs, and then motorbikes. Cycles and pedestrians are the lightest in weight and have least effect. The frequency of use is also a consideration, with frequent repeated use having most effect. The ability of the BOAT to ‘dry out’ - including surface water run-off, and the drying effects of sun and wind on the surface - is another factor that should be considered. The less able a BOAT is to dry out, the greater effect of heavy and frequent use.

3.9 Although surfacing works were undertaken 3 years ago, the BOAT has become potholed and it has areas of deep surface mud. With a continuation of the current use, both the potholes and the muddier sections are likely to become deeper and more frequent..

3.10 It is clear from the wheel marks through the muddier sections that have agricultural vehicle use is a major contributory factor to the degradation of the surface. Contributing factors are likely to include the inability of surface water to drain from the surface, and in some places the blocking of sunlight and wind by adjacent vegetation.

3.11 The route was surveyed in mid-week. No other users, public or private, were observed using the BOAT.

3.12 The BOAT has good sightlines along its full length, and available verges nearby. It is unlikely that any type of use would have a significant impact on the safety of users. The visibility of drainage grips across grassy verges and banks is important, particularly for horse-riders.

3.13 The BOAT is situated in a tranquil, rural area. Engine noise from nearby roads does not intrude, and the BOAT is situated in a quiet area. Whilst users may expect to encounter an occasional motorised vehicle on a BOAT, frequent or repetitive use of the BOAT by vehicles with noisy engines would be likely to impact on the enjoyment of tranquillity for other users of the BOAT, particularly as the engine noise would travel over long distances due to the relative quietness of the area. Non-motorised users are not likely to impact on the character of the BOAT.

3.14 Stakeholders’ Points of View

3.14.1 BOAT 23 is considered by the pedestrians representative to be a very useful connection within the rights of way network. The BOAT is considered to be very attractive with pleasant views. The large water- filled potholes were considered to be a minor inconvenience with little overall impact, although it was thought that high rainfall might increase the level of inconvenience. The BOAT could be expected to be well used by walkers and it was noted that the BOAT is broad for most of its length and so can easily be shared.

3.14.2 BOAT 23 is considered to be an important connecting route for cyclists who wish to avoid riding on roads and relax away from motorised traffic. It is also seen as having potential to be included in a traffic- free loop from Alton, which if developed would be likely to increase levels of use. The amenity value of BOAT 23 was considered to be high but without any standout views or other characteristics - the main value is that it forms part of a collection of traffic free routes with a countryside nature. It was noted that the sealed surface provided on the nearby country lanes was a good alternative for road and touring cyclists, with the more natural surfacing on BOAT 23 being suitable for use by mountain bikers. The lack of a sealed surface was seen as positive, making the BOAT seem natural rather than contrived, and giving a feeling of being away from the normal trappings of life. Whilst noting that some mud was unavoidable at certain times of year, deep mud was seen to be difficult even for experienced mountain bike riders. Aside from the issue of deep mud, the highest priority for management was considered to be keeping the route free from obstructions such as fallen trees and vegetation overgrowth. Gates were seen as less preferable to bollards or chicanes which don’t require stopping or dismounting, and self-closing gates were preferred to manually latching gates. Other than conflicting with the desire to cycle on traffic-free routes, the use of the route by other types of user was not in itself considered to be an issue, although use by 4WDs was thought to erode surfaces very quickly and create very deep ruts that are hazardous and disrupt water dispersion, and there was a concern that horses could cause damage or heavy mud in winter in isolated areas.

Page 13 of 18 3.14.3 The equestrians representative had no specific comments to make on BOAT 23, but in general would like to see gates remain open, so that equestrians do not have to pass through the bridlegates. The recent permit system was unwelcome, but could be tolerated by equestrians as a means to prevent damage by vehicle use. However, seasonal restrictions on motorised vehicle use are considered to be a realistic compromise. Self-closing bridlegates, in particular, are viewed as being difficult to use by equestrians, and dangerous if the mechanism closes quickly. The view was that carriage-drivers can find it difficult to unlock a padlocked gate if they are travelling alone, but they should be able to pass through a 1.6 metre wide gap that has a straight approach on both sides. Bollards were proposed as being a more acceptable vehicle barrier, as it was thought that motorbikes would be able to use any provision made for equestrians.

3.14.4 The vehicle users representative comments that recreational use of BOATs (in general) by motorbikes has decreased significantly over the last 40 years, and that although 4WD use was previously unobtrusive, it too seems to have declined in recent years. BOAT 23 has not been seen as being problematic for use by vehicles and it was noted that it had been a good gravel surfaced track in the past. Jennie Green Lane was noted as standing up to heavy farm traffic, with no practical reason why it shouldn't be open to all public traffic. BOAT 23, as with all Bentworth BOATs, was not considered to be a priority for the investment of resources. It was thought that a TRO preventing vehicular use could not be justified, given the amount of private vehicular use of Jennie Green Lane as a whole. Jennie Green Lane (as a whole) was particularly valued as a long and continuous trail away from tarmac roads, with (on road) links to BOATS and unclassified roads in other areas including Wield and Alresford. In general, BOATs are valued for providing an option for vehicle users to get away from tarmac and fast-moving traffic. Motorcyclists will additionally appreciate the peace and quiet afforded by BOATs, and the opportunity to get close to wildlife. BOATs can also be used to learn and practice bike-handling skills. If any restriction is to be applied, it is suggested that a weight restriction, or a seasonal restriction, would be the most appropriate.

3.14.5 In response to a consultation about making the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order permanent, local residents’ views were primarily that use by vehicles had damaged the surface of the route in the past making the BOAT surface very muddy and waterlogged. Comments were also made that the BOAT is more tranquil when there is no motorised vehicle access. The permit system was thought to have significantly reduced the overall amount of use by 4WDs, and the 4WD use under the permit system was responsible and no longer anti-social. The presence of gates across the full width of the BOAT was disliked by some local residents.

4 Options and Recommendations for future management (including impact assessments)

4.1 The management of BOATs falls into two broad categories: practical management and management of users. Practical management may include works to maintain or improve features such as the surface, drainage and vegetation. Management of users is likely to comprise a restriction of access and/or communication with users.

4.2 The decision on what practical management is most appropriate for BOAT 23 will be dependent upon the type and level of use of the BOAT. Therefore it is pragmatic to first decide whether a restriction to the traffic using the BOAT is appropriate, and if so what that restriction should be.

4.3 Traffic management options

4.3.1 When considering how to best manage traffic on the BOAT, consideration must be given to the legal and policy framework, and formal guidance. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA) sets out the circumstances under which a restriction to traffic can be made. Hampshire County Council (HCC) has two relevant policies: a Policy for the Management of Traffic on Hampshire’s Public Rights of Way Network and the Use of Traffic Regulation Orders, published in 2006; and a Policy Regarding the Use and Management of Motor Vehicles on Rights of Way, published in 2007. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural

Page 14 of 18 Affairs (Defra) published a revised edition of “Making the best of byways”, guidance for local authorities managing and maintaining byways which carry motor vehicles, in 2005. Defra also published a guide to local authorities on Regulating the use of motor vehicles on public rights of way in 2005.

4.3.2 In February 2016, Defra wrote to Northumberland National Park Authority and to motor vehicle stakeholders proposing that, contrary to earlier expectations that a working group of experts would be set up to look at motor vehicle use of unsealed routes such as BOAT 23, Defra instead suggested that it could set up a one-off forum for motor vehicle stakeholders to discuss ways of working together to achieve locally brokered solutions. In his letter to the National Park Authority, the minister particularly supports the use of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) by the authority to restrict, prohibit and regulate the use of byways open to all traffic. The minister also notes the importance of keeping up to date with maintenance and drainage and repairs. The indication seems to be that Government does not intend to introduce any new legislation on the management of BOATs in the near future, and that local solutions should be found, and that these may well include the use of powers to restrict use of BOATs.

4.3.3 The Defra guidance identifies and details three categories of solutions to resolve problems on byways - Restraint (which includes TROs), Maintenance, and Repair - and notes that in many cases a combination of these will be required. It also states that TROs can be used to prevent problems from happening, not just stop damage once it has already occurred, recommending that as a matter of policy and good practice a TRO-making authority should be able to demonstrate that there was a reasonable risk of the damage occurring which the TROs would prevent.

4.3.4 HCC’s 2006 policy indicates that decisions on the making of TROs will be in accordance with Defra’s 2005 guidance. The policy additionally states that if a TRO is considered, it should be the least restrictive necessary, and the policy sets out several steps to be taken which may culminate in a restriction by TRO. The 2006 policy requires more than the Defra guidance requirement to demonstrate that there is a reasonable risk of damage.

4.3.5 HCC’s 2007 policy makes it clear that the County Council will take action to restrict access by motor vehicles if their use is damaging to a route or the local environment, or conflicts with the reasonable interests of walkers, riders, cyclists or carriage drivers. The 2007 policy also sets out an approach for practical works, indicating that repairs and maintenance of BOATs will be prioritised to benefit non- motorised users, and that surface damage is made good by those responsible when caused by private use. The 2007 policy makes reference to HCC’s 2006 policy and clearly does not over-ride or supersede it - rather the two policies sit alongside each other and the provisions of both should be observed.

4.3.6 The RTRA sets out the grounds for restricting traffic by use of a TRO. These grounds are: a for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of such danger arising b for preventing damage to the road or to any building on or near the road c for facilitating the passage on the road…. of any class of traffic (including pedestrians) d for preventing the use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or its use by vehicular traffic in a manner which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property e for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot f for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs g for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of section 87 of the Environment Act 1995 (air quality) h for conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of the area

[Noting that points a-g are provided for by section 1, and point h is provided for by section 22A of the RTRA]

4.3.7 The RTRA also sets out that the traffic authority has a duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic, insofar as this is practicable in having regard to specified

Page 15 of 18 matters. The specified matters include the effect on the amenities of the locality so as to preserve or improve them, and any other matter which appears to the local authority to be relevant.

4.3.8 In effect, this means that having first established that there are valid grounds to make a TRO, the authority then needs to carry out a balancing exercise between the duty to secure the prescribed movement of traffic and the other factors it considers to be relevant. The TRO should only be made if the authority considers that other relevant matters outweigh the need to secure the movement of traffic.

4.3.9 The making of a permanent TRO has the effect of removing public rights, and is therefore often contentious. Case law has established some ‘ground rules’, but it is clear that when making a TRO it is advisable for an authority to have a clear record of its decision making process.

4.3.10 In addition to permanent TROs, the RTRA also empowers the traffic authority to make temporary orders and Experimental Traffic Orders, both of which restrict or prohibit traffic. Temporary orders are intended to be short-term and are normally used whilst works are being undertaken, or to prevent danger to the public or physical damage. ETOs, as the name suggests, allow the authority to try out an experimental traffic control scheme. Making an experimental order as a precursor to a permanent order can have material benefits, specifically it can truncate the requirements as to consultation, notice of proposals and objections, providing other requirements have been met. This can be a more cost effective and flexible approach (allowing e.g. for immediate feedback and minor changes) than a permanent order or a temporary order (which cannot be converted into a permanent order).

4.3.11 As an alternative to prohibiting or restricting traffic by order, a form of voluntary restraint may be sought. However, ‘Making the best of byways’ notes that voluntary restraint is widely seen by authorities as ineffective in managing vehicle use of BOATs. Nevertheless, HCC’s 2006 policy infers that voluntary restraint will be considered as an option for managing traffic before consideration of a TRO.

4.4 Traffic management recommendations

4.4.1 Significant consideration has been given by HCC as to the most appropriate management of BOAT 23; these considerations and the conclusions drawn have been documented by officers. Following substantial repairs to the fabric of the route, and as noted in paragraph 3.4, a decision was taken was to make a Experimental Traffic Order, the purpose of which was to ascertain whether a permit system could successfully be used to regulate motorised use of the BOAT. Regular monitoring of BOAT 23 was undertaken to assess how successful the ETO was in respect of how well recent repairs withstood use, whether the surface had deteriorated, and whether the permit system was functional.

4.4.2 The ETO came into effect in May 2014, and in July 2015 a report was made to the relevant Executive Member on the outcomes of the experiment and options for future management of BOAT 23. The Executive Member agreed with the view in the report that the experiment had successfully shown that restricting motorised access to permit holders provided for sustainable and effective management of the BOAT. The recorded decision was to make a Traffic Regulation Order to prohibit all motorised vehicles except for permit holders, however the execution of this decision subsequently faltered. As a consequence it is no longer possible to make the 2014 ETO permanent, and BOAT 23 is set to become freely open to all classes of user in May 2016.

4.4.3 The evidence considered in this report shows that BOAT 23 sustains relatively heavy private use, much of which is by large agricultural vehicles. Orders to prohibit or restrict use apply only to public users, as separate access rights are held by private users. The physical condition assessment of BOAT 23 does not indicate that any form of public use of the route is, or would be, unsustainable when set against the context of this level of private use. Comments from local residents and observations made during the survey of the routes indicate that the amenity of the area (i.e. the pleasantness and attractiveness of the area, which is generally quiet and tranquil) would be improved by the prevention of irresponsible motorised vehicle use. However, the assessment of the evidence does not demonstrate that public vehicular use of

Page 16 of 18 BOAT 23 would be sufficiently different from private use to the extent that a TRO prohibiting or restricting any class of traffic is required under the RTRA, and according to guidance and policy.

4.4.4 It is recommended that no further restriction or prohibition of traffic is made at this time. Monitoring of the physical condition of the route and of the effect of use, irresponsible or otherwise, should be undertaken at a level that is appropriate within the resources available. In the event that public use is shown to be detrimental to the overall character of the route (and in consideration of BOAT 23 being specially suitable for persons on horseback or on foot) to the extent of outweighing the benefits of the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic, it would then be recommended that vehicular traffic of the class, or classes, that is unsuitable be prohibited through the use of a TRO.

4.4.5 When the current restrictions on BOAT 23 are lifted, communication with stakeholders to inform them of the possibility of a future traffic restriction would be beneficial. This should help to allay the concerns of residents, and might result in some self-policing by users of irresponsible use.

4.5 Practical management options and recommendations

4.5.1 The practical management of a BOAT, mostly relates to the maintenance or repair of the surface, drainage and vegetation, and the installation or maintenance of furniture including signage. The practical management should be appropriate to the use, but pragmatically will be constrained by the resources available.

4.5.2 On the expiration of the ETO, and under the recommended traffic management option, BOAT 23 will be available to all types of traffic. The condition survey indicates that it is passable by all user types, although some could experience difficulty if the surface condition were to worsen.

4.5.3 The surface condition of the BOAT suffers from the retention of surface water and mud. Steps have been taken in places to improve drainage from the surface into ditches, however it is evident from the condition survey that the scale of these works is insufficient to cope with the size/weight of the vehicles using the BOAT. The surface condition may improve as weather conditions become drier. However, it is likely to continue to deteriorate in wet conditions.

4.5.4 It is recommended that, subject to the availability of resources as allocated according to HCC’s priority guidelines, the extent of the drainage works is increased by creating larger, deeper grips to take surface water and mud into adjacent ditches, and potentially deepening existing ditches (e.g. point 11) and creating new ditches (e.g. point 12). Periodic clearing of the grips might be necessary, although creating wide grips that slope quite steeply into ditches should help prevent any silting up. The visibility of grips across grassy verges and banks should be maintained.

4.5.5 It is apparent from the tyre marks on the BOAT that heavy agricultural vehicles are spreading the surface mud which then prevents drainage from the surface. It also seems very likely that these agricultural vehicles are a contributory, if not the main, cause of the potholing. It is recommended that the relevant landowners are approached with a view to reaching an agreement on the future maintenance of drainage, including the removal of surface mud which is causing drainage to fail. The Defra guidance ‘Making the Best of Byways’ notes (on page 24) that enforcement notices can be served on landowners to repair a byway surface so that it is suitable for all user groups.

4.6 Impact assessments

4.6.1 The traffic management recommendations, which is to not introduce traffic management through restrictions or prohibitions, will have a neutral impact on the rest of the highway network. The practical management recommendations are likely to have a low impact on the rest of the highway network; some non-vehicular users may be attracted to the BOAT if the surface mud and water decreased through increased drainage, but this is unlikely to have anything other than a negligible impact on the rest of the

Page 17 of 18 highway network. It is unlikely that improvements to drainage would have any effect on the use of the BOAT by vehicular traffic, given the position of the BOAT within the network of BOATs in the area.

4.6.2 The proposed recommendations are likely to have a low equality impact. There will be no impact on any equalities other than age and disability. The potential decrease in surface mud, will contribute to a better surface quality which will make the BOAT more accessible to a wider range of users.

5 Conclusion

5.1 The recommendations for the future management of traffic on Bentworth BOAT 23 are:

• to monitor the impacts of public use on the character of the BOAT • to consider making a TRO if a class, or classes, of traffic is shown to be unsuitable for, or detrimental to, the character of the BOAT in ways that differ from, or surpass, the effects of private use • to undertake maintenance works, within and according to the priorities of the overall rights of way maintenance programme, to improve the drainage of water and mud from the surface of the BOAT • to approach those for whom the BOAT provides access for land management purposes to negotiate an agreement in respect of maintenance works

5.2 In arriving at these recommendations, the following options were also considered:

5.2.1 Prohibit or restrict one or more classes of vehicular traffic with or without an exception for those vehicles for which a permit has been issued, at all times or seasonally. Any such prohibition would affect only the public use of BOAT 23. The effect that private vehicular use has on the character of the BOAT is of a nature and extent that would appear to equal or surpass the effect of public vehicular use. In light of the private use, the evidence available does not show that the prohibition of traffic by means of a TRO would preserve the character of the BOAT, prevent it from being damaged, or otherwise satisfy the RTRA’s grounds for restricting traffic.

5.2.2 Improve the surface of BOAT 23 by giving it a sealed surface. A sealed surface would withstand much more use by vehicles. However, a sealed surface would completely change the character of the BOAT making is less attractive to the majority of the users and to the local community. A sealed surface is considered much less suitable for use by equestrians than the existing stone surface. Providing a sealed surface would also be very costly.

5.3 The recommendation is in-line with Defra guidance.

Page 18 of 18